Fantozzi v. City of New York

Background

Stephen Joseph Fantozzi sued the City of New York, Officers Anthony P. Sclafani and Angel L. Figueroa, Jr., and unnamed New York Police Department officers. He alleged that, in May 2018, officers grabbed, restrained, kicked, and pulled him to the ground; applied handcuffs too tightly; and pulled him up by the handcuffs despite his statements that he had shoulder injuries. He alleged injuries to his back, hand, and shoulders and stated that no charges were brought against him.

The complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, excessive force, failure to intervene, and municipal liability against the City. Fantozzi served the City on June 22, 2021. The 90-day period for serving the individual defendants expired on August 16, 2021. Sclafani was served on March 9, 2022, and Figueroa was served on March 17, 2022.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m), 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(c). They argued that the claims against Sclafani and Figueroa should be dismissed because service was late; that the claims against the unnamed officers were barred by the statute of limitations; and that the municipal-liability claim did not state a sufficient claim. Fantozzi’s opposition addressed only the service issue.

Rulings on Service

Rule 4(m) generally requires service within 90 days after filing the complaint. If a plaintiff shows good cause for failing to serve on time, the court must extend the deadline. The court also has discretion to extend the deadline without good cause, but the plaintiff ordinarily must provide a reasonable explanation for the neglect and show circumstances supporting an extension.

The court held that Fantozzi’s counsel had not shown good cause for the delayed service of Sclafani and Figueroa. Counsel identified financial difficulties and stated that service became financially practicable after receiving case funding in March 2022. The court found that counsel did not describe diligent attempts to serve the officers, seek an extension, or address the service problem after learning in October 2021 that the officers had not been served.

The court also declined to grant a discretionary extension. Although the statute of limitations and the officers’ apparent notice of the case favored Fantozzi, the court found that the defendants had not concealed the service defect and that the lengthy delay would prejudice the officers. The court denied Fantozzi’s request for an extension, and the claims against Sclafani and Figueroa were dismissed with prejudice.

Unnamed Officers

Fantozzi asserted false-arrest, excessive-force, and failure-to-intervene claims against John and Jane Doe officers. The defendants argued that the statute of limitations had expired and that the unnamed-officer allegations could not be used to avoid that bar. Because Fantozzi did not respond to those arguments, the court deemed the claims abandoned and dismissed them with prejudice.

City of New York

A municipal-liability claim under § 1983 requires allegations of an official policy or custom that caused the denial of a constitutional right. The court found that Fantozzi’s allegations merely stated, in general terms, that the alleged conduct followed the City’s and police department’s policies and customs. The court held that these conclusory allegations did not plausibly plead municipal liability. It also held that Fantozzi abandoned the claim by failing to address the defendants’ arguments about it.

The court dismissed the claim against the City without prejudice. It permitted Fantozzi to file an amended complaint asserting that claim because the court could not conclude at that stage that amendment would necessarily be futile. The court did not determine whether the City claim was time-barred. Any amended complaint was due within 14 days after entry of the opinion.

Disposition

The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted. The claims against Sclafani, Figueroa, and the John and Jane Doe defendants were dismissed with prejudice. The claim against the City of New York was dismissed without prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.